National Marketing vs. Atlas
National Marketing vs. Atlas
Defendant Atlas admitted making the offer adding however that plaintiff was duly
informed of that it was acting in its representative capacity and that the letter of credit
being in favor of the beneficiary, West India Commercial Company of New York, New
York, U. S. A., could not be utilized in view of what was considered "serious discrepancies
between the terms of the said letter of credit and the contract;" no delivery of the 8,000
metric tons of galvanized steel sheets, was made as there was no obligation to do so, but
even if it arose, "delivery was made impossible by the prior rescission of the contracts by
plaintiff."
Defendant Alto denied the allegations of the complaint claiming that it never incurred
any obligation at all under the contract which was the basis of the complaint "as it was
never a party to it, nor did it authorize anyone to obligate it in any manner whatsoever,"
and that plaintiff "having discharged the West India Commercial Corporation of New
York from liability on said contract, [defendant Alto] is and must likewise be discharged,
the obligation of the surety being merely accessory to that of the principal."
The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground that because there was a
discrepancy concerning the needed letter of credit (which the court ruled as a condition
precedent), no liability could attach to defendant Atlas.